The Aussies Had a Gun Massacre Problem. THEY FIXED IT! WHY CAN'T WE?

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

50. There's much more to fix than can be fixed by gun control, but -

we can NOT have a real conversation about it until the NRA is a stinking memory. This may be a unique opportunity to sink them, before they figure out a strategy to misdirect and come up on top again in political circles and in the media.

54. Most Definately

While I own guns and want to keep that right, I despise the NRA
We could have made meaningful changes long ago had it not been for the NRA.
Even though I do own guns, I am completely open to reasonable restrictions and have been for a long time.
The NRA must change its tune. I would be much happier if they just went away... permanently

128. Their pals in the conspiracy world and Rush and Beck haven't though - neither has ALEC.

There needs to be a pushback in every state legislature on the loosening of gun control. Look at Michigan - after going after voters, women, children, public workers, schools and the Commons in general and most notably unions - they are passing more liberalization of CCW. Not stopping the war on any of the others, either.

6. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014339712

60. I was watching...

... one of the weekend shows, I don't remember which one, but one of the guests said the NRA didn't have the power the media and many people said it did. And he wasn't challenged on that! I couldn't believe it.
When NRA membership cards are allowed as legal ID to vote in some states, when legislators are coersed by NRA *grading* threats, when gun restrictions are repealed with the ONLY advocate of repeal is the NRA, when background checks are required for hand guns but NOT long guns because of the NRA, the statement saying the power of the NRA is limited, it patently false.
While I believe in the 2nd amendment, with reasonable restrictions like any other part of the Constitution already has, THAT organization should be disbanded by order of law.

21. Bingo! Their macho deficiency, propped up with their multiple weapons.

Why else the use of military knock-offs for hunting, when there are perfectly good standard rifles designed for hunting.
It is a sickness. We are starting to recognize psychopathy as a problem, why not gun nutterey also?

41. Why do you cherish that Amendment so much, when all the other Amendments have been

Amended lots of times? I heard a judge tell a defendant that our Constitution was written for the men hundreds of years ago, and not for today's people...therefore he wouldn't allow him to use We the People as an example.

76. For ME....

..I can't understand why part of the 2nd amendment - THE FIRST FOUR WORDS OF THAT AMENDMENT - " A well regulated militia" are hardly EVER mentioned by those who claim said amendment for their own!

What the HELL is regulated - or even passes as a "militia" about those who cling to the personal arsenals? I would like these Rambos to give a detailed explanation of how it is they're gun lust is "regulated". Show me how you're regulated. Show me the enforcing authority for said regulations! Show me how it is they regulate you on a daily basis. We're talking tools EXPLICITLY designed to cause cessation of life in a living being. So explain to me how death tools should be less regulated than your toaster, your pool or your table saw or your automobile. Just how DO the words "regulated" and "militia" figure into your 2nd amendment sheild?

181. I don't understand your comment Pop Topcan

55. No. Australian law is based heavily on English law . . .

And is in fact a member of the Commonwealth, i.e., a formal part of the UK's empire. (Bet you thought that had disappeared entirely, didn't you?)

Which means it's a body of law rather than a foundation document with narrow authorship, and a heavy dose of common law open to broad interpretation by government and the legal system.

But mostly, attitudes toward guns are cultural. Many of my Aussie friends like guns; but I don't know any who love them. Almost nobody's manhood is wrapped up in owning them, and very few Aussies of my acquaintance are so scared of their own shadows that they can't go out of the house without one.

But young Aussies tend to get into fights much more often than young Americans. And when they do, they tend to use their fists. Or the nearest potentially dangerous object (beer glasses are popular, and in fact have given rise to the term "glassing," meaning to throw same in someone's face). But they almost never use guns, and don't care to.

Aussies also like Americans on the whole, but think we're nuts about guns.

107. Close but not exactly

Australia is a Commonwealth Realm, like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados and the UK itself, rather than a colony like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda. The Realms (also called Dominions) recognise the Queen as their Head of State but are entirely independent and self-governing.

Australia has had its own Constitution since 1901, Canada since 1982, New Zealand since 1986.

That said, the laws in all those countries are heavily based on British precedent and tradition.

Our independence came by revolution; theirs came by evolution.

I live near the Canadian border. I still see signs of Olde Brittania there; the Crown on police vehicles, the "EIIR" cypher on some public buildings, the Union Jack in the cantons of the Ontario and Manitoba flags, and "Royal" here and there (Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Mounted Police).

Australia held a referendum in 1999 to ditch the Monarchy, but it was unsuccessful.

I don't know about Jamaica, Barbados, etc., but the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have much, much lower rates of violent crime than we do.

Compare the two cities of Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario...separated by the mile-wide Detroit River, but truly two worlds apart in attitudes toward crime and guns.

132. Define "exactly" . . .

I live in Australia (have for years) and I'd say that my description of it as "a part of the empire" is essentially true. And the Constitution signed in 1901 is not the only document that makes up Australia's "Constitution." Several other documents collectively make it up.

166. Empire v. Commonwealth

OK, when I speak, I speak as an ardent Anglophile/Australophile/Canadaphile/Kiwiphile (those terms sound creepy, eh?).

First, the Empire hasn't really existed as such since the 1931 Statute of Westminster, when the Dominions were granted self-government; that's when the term "British Commonwealth" came into use. In the Second World War, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa declared war independently of the UK. Canada did so a week after the UK.

Second, decolonisation was rapid after the Second World War. I would put Indian independence as a Republic within the Commonwealth as a tipping point. Much of the Empire in Africa became independent.

Third, South Africa, one of the "charter Dominions," became a Republic outside the Commonwealth in 1961 because of their odious Apartheid policy.

The Commonwealth is a valuable "family of nations" today, even if a lot of people in Britain itself (younger ones mostly) don't even know what it is. A British friend of mine was surprised to see the Queen's image on Canadian currency, and this was back in the '90s.

There is still an Empire: the Falkland Islands, Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc. They are different to the Commonwealth Realms as they are largely ruled from London.

I would put Australia's status as similar to Canada (Quebec aside) and New Zealand as being "children" of the Empire and "grown-ups" in the Commonwealth.

167. The Commonwealth and the Empire are two different things...

Australia was part of the British Empire (a Dominion), which disintergrated after WWII and decolonisation of a lot of the Empire. What remained became the Commonwealth, which to the best of my knowledge has no benefits for its members other than the following:

1. The PM gets their pic taken in funny clothes with the Queen at CHOGM.
2. Live and work in other parts of the Commonwealth for a year or so if yr under 30.
3. Get to attend the Commonwealth Games and be trounced by Australia at every sport there is.

177. Membership does have its benefits...

As stated, I live near the Canadian border.

Canadians (Quebec excepted) tend to view the Queen and Commonwealth as one major distinction between them and the United States.

I worked at a college here in the U.S. and one of our students was from Zimbabwe when they copped the boot from the C'wealth because of Robert Mugabe's dictatorship. A very bright, very sweet young woman, who was planning to attend university in Canada for her Master's degree under a Commonwealth student plan. She said, "now I can't do that, since I'm not a Commonwealth citizen anymore!" She was cheesed-off no end and I don't blame her as she had loads of potential to go a long way in life. We had another student from Canada who went to New Zealand for her Master's degree under a similar plan.

Commonwealth citizens can generally serve in one another's armed forces. I remember reading about a Canadian helicopter pilot who put in 20 years' service, retired, moved to Australia, joined the Royal Australian Navy at the rank of Lieutenant-Commander and, as far as I know, is still serving in the RAN as a helicopter pilot there. When the Royal New Zealand Air Force disbanded its fighter units some RNZAF pilots ended up in the RAAF, RAF and RCAF.

However, I do know of Canadians who are angry that EU nationals get precedence ahead of them for UK immigration.

145. There's another document that should be read...

It says something along the lines of "thou shalt not kill"...and it's been around longer than the Constitution. It might be an outdated concept, but it makes a lot more sense than "I gotta get me more of them AR-15 rifles before Obama takes 'em away!"

By the way, I'm a atheist, and I still think that line in the Bible makes more sense than the 2nd Amendment.

169. No advanced nation...

No advanced nation has a so called "right" to bear arms. That shows how far from the mainstream of 21st century thinking the thinking of Americans is. No wonder the Backward States of America is considered vastly inferior to our nations in every way that counts for anything.

Your nation will continue to be the Backward States of America in the minds of those of us outside the Backward States until the so called "right" to bear arms is repealed and replaced with a real right, the universal right to access to health care regardless of income.

45,000 Americans die each year because they are unable to get the health care they need in the Backward States.
20,000 Americans die each year because there is a so called "right" to bear arms.
Repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with a right to health care would save the lives of 65,000 Americans each year who now die because of the misplaced values of the Backward States of America and it's brain dead citizens.

It's a wonder that brain dead Americans don't have tanks, bazookas, and nuclear weapons in their houses, since these are "arms", and supposedly something they have a so called "right" to as well.

Just as a point of reference, 50 to 60 Canadians are murdered with guns each year, in the area of 1 a week nationwide (and Canadian kids play as many violent video games as American kids), whereas 10,500 Americans are murdered with guns each year, over 200 each week, or 200 times as many as there are in Canada.

42. We piss that away on the military every year...and then some.

So by your logic it is too expensive so be prepared oh you a gonna pay for it...seriously do you think all guns will be turned in? of course not. If this saves even one child/one person it is worth the cost.

And we spend way more then that on military every year. How about we take some of that entitlement and cut it? Yeah I know a pipe dream never gonna happen...

137. We piss that much away every year on greenskeeping on military golf courses!

52. Yes, that would be expensive

However, that money just doesn't disappear. You're putting 120 billion into the hands of people who are most likely to spend it. Let's say my state got 5 billion of those dollars, and that went into buying goods and services. The state has a 6% sales tax, so they'd stand to gain 300 million. That'd go to pay for a lot of services, which also generate more activity.

Spending generates economic activity, not investment. Buying back guns would generate a lot of economic activity.

93. Thank you for your post

Australia is a good example of a country comparable to America that is setting the pace on this.

If Americans could go to Australia they would know there is something different about the place. Less fear, less distrust, less anger, less defensiveness.

As someone said in this thread, the Aussies still have a representative Democracy that responds to the people. America is beholden to arms manufacturers, war profiteers, Big Oil, fat cat self-serving corporates, and the NRA.

15. The UK got rid of most guns after another School Shootong, 16 children 1 Adult..........

I remember this one, the entire nation had HAD IT!

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.

Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

147. Of course you can ban things

...things that the majority of people feel are detrimental to a civilized society.

You can't live in fear of the GOP. And you can't be so in awe of the constitution that you use it for an excuse to continue the carnage of innocent people. I don't think that was the founding fathers intention.

39. Their massacre rate was much lower than ours before the ban, too

And, anyways, the argument in the OP was that the homicide rate went down after Australia restricted access to firearms, so I think it's very apropos to point out that our homicide rate also went down, by pretty much the same amount, after we didn't restrict access to firearms.

56. What do you think of this paper?:

"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership."

Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Previous research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime has been impeded by a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No. 7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.

That's the step where we disagree, I think. The effect of fewer guns is clearly going to be fewer homicides; what I don't think is that there's a way to actually reduce the number of guns through legislation. I've lived in DC for 15 years. We've had a near-total ban on gun ownership most of that time, and significantly more guns per capita than NYC for all of that time. Sort of like the rate of alcohol consumption seems to have actually gone up during Prohibition.

72. I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. I bet you would too, if you learned what it actually did

For example, the rifle used by the shooter in CT wasn't an assault weapon (it would have been if it had had a bayonet lug).

I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law.

75. Are you

"I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. "

...against this:

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Are you against that?

"I think a lot of people think the assault weapons ban banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. It didn't. Maybe doing that would be a good thing (I personally doubt legally banning them would actually get rid of them, but I wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it). But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a stupid, stupid law."

OK, you hated the 1994 law, but pointed to a potential solution, which you say you "wouldn't spill a ton of electrons opposing it."

So why exactly are you adamantly finding excuses to object to the point in the OP, and to addressing the problem?

79. As I've said repeatedly, for two reasons

1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease

Would I support that? Possibly. We could certainly use the stimulus, and as someone pointed out upthread we're talking about a few hundred billion dollars. The phrase "genuine reason" worries me a bit; as long as it's statutory rather than the whim of a possibly racist or sexist sheriff, I could buy into it. I'd rather see private sales regulated than prohibited (require a background check and publicly recorded), but I'd also rather see drugs and prostitution regulated than prohibited, so I'm pretty far off the mainstream there, I guess. Private sales will continue whether they're legal or not, and I'd rather have them off the black market and kept track of as much as possible.

84. You keep making

"1) Since we got the exact same decrease in gun crimes as Australia did, without actually getting rid of guns like Australia tried to, I think it's silly to credit Australia's gun control with the crime decrease"

...this point. From the OP:

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

That is not "the exact same decrease."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

88. Well, first off, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996

At Monash University

Secondly, as horrible as mass shootings are, they are such a small part of murder that they don't even appear in statistics. That's how we can have an increasing number of mass shootings in the context of a murder rate that's been cut in half.

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

from another age, when guns were tools for survival on the newly opening frontier.

There is no longer any reason to retain this archaic throwback to another age.

The 2nd has been egregiously misinterpreted and misapplied, allowing mad people to murder with impunity by using modern weapons designed for mass destruction...

Any other sane country would have struck it down long ago. But, a significant and influential share of the US population are deranged extremists who force the rest of the nation to deal with their obsessions.

98. You live in an urban area - great.

Tens of millions of Americans still live in rural areas where nuisance animals that destroy property and kill animals wander free. People still live where the nearest authorities are 15, 20, 30 minutes away.

You believe, because you live where guns are not needed, that all of us live there too.

Your world view is exceptionally narrow, and that is why you cannot understand those of us who own forearms for perfectly legitimate and necessary reasons.

48. Question:

How can we agree to take away guns in America when we supply other countries with guns (Syria)?? How can we agree to take away guns when other countries hate us so much, and they send their "sleepers" here, ready to pounce any second on the innocent people?? How are we to protect ourself? Taking away guns is not the answer. Maybe limit the amount of ammunition?

163. a little deliberately obtuse are we? nt

57. Because

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

...one of the NRA talking points is that the above can't work, and NRA shills use the 2nd Amendment as a crutch for their flawed logic.

66. The point is the policy worked to reduce the violence.

What exactly is the point of trying to argue about ownership?

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

71. Your argument is

"In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."

The US:

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

94. because Americans are fucking crazy, unlike Aussies.

I can't believe I said that, but it's true. Aussies are world famous for their crazed stunts and attitudes. Yet they have universal healthcare, universal suffrage, very strict recycling laws and exquisitely representational democracy--everyone required by law to vote.

We can't do that because our democracy sucks and we are ruled by crazy greedy totalitarian religious zealots from hell, determined to punish anyone not exactly like they are.

Given the title of the piece ("After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since"), how many mass shooting similar to the 1996 incident has there been since that time? Since 2002?

There was also specific action taken after the 2002 incident, which is still a decade ago.

Each slaughter of innocents seems to get more appalling. A high school. A college campus. A movie theater. People meeting their congresswoman. A shopping mall in Oregon, just this Tuesday. On Friday, an elementary school classroom.

160. Hrm, not how i understood it

Kind of like semantics Imo. People died from being shot by guns, I could care less what kinds or in what fashion. Any action like this is sickening and something has needed to be done for years. There is very rarely a reason to taken life and no reason to take so many.

165. There's been no massacres since the gun reform happened in Australia...

In the years leading up to Port Arthur, there was a spate of massacres. Since then, nothing. And do you know why? Because the decision was made to try to minimise the occurence of massacres carried out with assault weapons by introducing strict gun control laws. One incident with a handgun at Monash Uni does not mean it's been a failure.

America needs to follow the lead of Australia. It worked for us, though we don't have the same sort of utter lunatics who worship guns as they do in the US, and when the NRA tried to get involved and fight against the new laws, people here saw them for the RW extremists they were....

127. What do you think the Swiss example proves?

134. I believe...

The Swiss "got it right" when it comes to the militia portion of our amendment. You want to call it a right? Fine, be prepared to be called into service.

The neutral country has a tradition of a gun in every closet, and ranks amongst the highest levels of gun ownership in the world — with estimate of as many as 4.5 million guns in a country of just 7.9 million people (few countries have more guns per capita — the US and Yemen are two).

However, gun related crime is remarkably low, with only 24 gun murders in 2009 — 0.3 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 2007 figures in the US of 4.2 per 100,000 people, according to Time Magazine.

135. I am Swiss (double citizen living there) and I agree.

108. We let Industry control our Government

The NRA is simply a front group for the Arms Industry. We let industries and the religion of money control our Government. We let industry fund Right Wing think tanks and the right wing talking heads spew tons of propaganda (as well as an enabling media) that destroy any chance of having a meaningful discussion on important issues. The Australians, they didn't. They have a functional government. We have a dysfunctional government that can hardly solve problems anymore as a result of Industries and their propaganda.

111. My sister in Australia

was married to an Aussie who was a competitive shooter. She told me that the gun laws there are very strict and are strictly enforced. Two examples I remember: he had to show proof of having a locked closet (including the type of locks) for his guns. If he had been involved in ANY type of violence, either in the home or elsewhere, his guns would be permanently confiscated and he would not be allowed to have any others. Even these two regulations are far too onerous for NRA and would never be adopted in the US although they would go a long way to prevent unnecessary deaths by guns.

158. I'm sure many said there would never be health care reform here....

I have faith that the NRA will be defeated and that sane gun reform will take place.

I don't have a problem with having a handgun for protection or a rifle for hunting. But there is no need for civilians to own assault weapons and high volume ammo cartridges shooting 10 or more rounds a second. And we must have serious background checks with a waiting period for anyone buying a gun. No more selling of any kind of guns or ammo on-line or at gun shows! Add high fines and prison terms for those selling guns illegally!